Nikki Haley Relying on Democrats in New Hampshire to Win Republican Primary and Keep Billionaire Donors Happy


Posted originally on the CTH on January 16, 2024 | Sundance

I doubt there is another website on the internet with as deep a Nikki Haley research file as CTH [SEE HERE]. She even has her own drop down category box, which we created the moment Nikki Haley stabbed Sarah Palin in the back.  You see, Nikki Haley would not exist in the world of politics if Sarah Palin had not shown up to rally support for her in the 2010 SC primary race.  But immediately after gaining all the benefit, Haley dismissed Palin, much like Ron DeSantis recently dismissed President Trump.

Taking away all of the pretending, it was very clear several years ago that Nikki Haley was the DeceptiCon to watch in 2024.  You might remember in early 2016, when the GOPe was meeting in Sea Island trying to figure out how to defeat Donald Trump, they picked Nikki Haley to deliver the 2016 State of the Union rebuttal.  That speech was entirely constructed as an attack on candidate Donald Trump.

Haley was always going to be the DeceptiCon candidate because she has always been for sale.  Haley doesn’t have actual defined positions or policies; instead, she follows political orders and does whatever the donors and corporations tell her to do.  Nikki Haley is the prototypical UniParty politician, and it comes as no surprise her campaign focus is to use Democrats to change the demographic of the Republican New Hampshire primary.

The billionaires who back Nikki Haley want the status quo to remain.  They are pouring millions into her campaign for one purpose, to remove President Trump.   Her key moment is this upcoming New Hampshire primary race.  If she comes close or wins, they will keep funding her.  If she fails to win in New Hampshire, Haley will collapse quickly as her loss in her home state of South Carolina is virtually guaranteed.

(NBC) – Former United Nations ambassador Nikki Haley is facing pressure from some of her top fundraisers to either seriously compete with, or outright defeat, Donald Trump in next week’s New Hampshire primary, after finishing third on Monday in the Iowa caucus.

“I would still like to see her get somewhere, but the mountain she has to climb is enormous,” Andy Sabin, a New York businessman and Haley fundraiser, told CNBC. “As much as I like Haley, I don’t even know what Trump could do to stop himself right now.”

Sabin plans to help raise money for Trump if Haley doesn’t make it through the primary season, despite previously telling CNBC he wouldn’t give the former president “a f—ing nickel.”

“He may be the only choice I have,” said Sabin.

Several Haley fundraisers who spoke to CNBC conceded that, unless she gets a very close second to Trump or manages to pull off an upset win in New Hampshire, the race could effectively be over for her after that. (read more)

However, all is not bad news.  “In Davos, Switzerland, a wealthy investment banking executive and Haley donor told CNBC on Tuesday that he’s now convinced Trump will be the Republican nominee and go on to defeat President Joe Biden in November.” 

Nikki Haley has one shot to keep the NEVER TRUMP money flowing…. New Hampshire. That’s it.

With the full support of the professional republican apparatus, and if she can fool enough republicans, and if the apparatus around her can find enough Democrats, then millions will be funneled into her campaign.   However, if she falls short in New Hampshire, it’s over.

The Nevada and South Carolina “NEVER TRUMP” groups will not align for Haley without a preceding victory in New Hampshire.

Want to get rid of Nikki Haley?  Crush her in New Hampshire.

Four Judges of DC Circuit Court of Appeals Excoriate Prior Executive Privilege Ruling, and The Admitted Scheme of Special Counsel Jack Smith


Posted originally on the CTH on January 16, 2024 | Sundance

In a 14-page opinion and ruling today [SEE pdf HERE] four judges from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals deconstruct the previous ruling from their own court as well as the DC judge beneath them that gave Special Counsel Jack Smith access to President Trump Twitter account data and then enforced a non-disclosure order.

There are multiple layers to this story, but the substantive part is the scheme and the construct of how the Lawfare took place.  There’s no way this was coincidental; I’ll explain why.

First, there are only 7 members on the full DC Circuit Court of Appeals.  When the Twitter case to gain access to President Trump communication came to the appellate level, somehow all three of the most left-wing judges were assigned to hear the appeal.

An “en banc” review would have included the full 7 members.  However, that review was made moot by the release of the information (a result of the appellate decision).  The release itself was done with the use of a non-disclosure order, hiding the ruling in secrecy and keeping President Trump from knowing about it.  Once the other four members of the DC CCA eventually found out about the case and the ramifications for ‘executive privilege’ their opinion lambasting their own court is released.

As noted from the panel, “the court here permitted a special prosecutor to avoid even the assertion of executive privilege by allowing a warrant for presidential communications from a third party and then imposing a nondisclosure order.”

The Circuit Court justices note that Jack Smith could have gone to the National Archives for the information as they held the same set of documents and information.  However, Smith didn’t want to go that route because the National Archives would inform President Trump as customary and provide him the ability to assert executive privilege over any of the 32 Direct Messages requested.

Jack Smith didn’t want President Trump to know the prosecution was looking through his Twitter metadata and personal communication, so they went to district court under seal to file their search warrants in secrecy; then banning Twitter (the third party) from telling President Trump about it.   The four justices from the DC Circuit Court of Appeals are furious the other three members of the court went along with this precedent setting usurpation of authority.

President Trump could not appeal any part of this process because he was unaware it was taking place.  In essence, a star-chamber of secrecy was established and the majority on DC Circuit Court of Appeals is not happy about it.

Jack Smith gained access after Twitter lost the 3-judge Circuit Court appeal decision. So, an en banc full 7-member ruling is essentially moot.  The information was released, and Smith had access without President Trump or the White House having any option to assert privilege.

…”While a Twitter account primarily consists of public tweets, it may also include some private material, such as direct messages between users, drafts, and personal metadata. In fact, the material produced by Twitter included several dozen direct messages written by a sitting President. The district court afforded no opportunity for the former President to invoke executive privilege before disclosure, and this court made no mention of the privilege concerns entangled in a third-party search of a President’s social media account. This approach directly contravenes the principles and procedures long used to adjudicate claims of executive privilege.”  [pdf HERE]

The ruling provides no remedy other than public scrutiny and perhaps fuel for Florida Judge Aileen Cannon who already has Special Counsel Jack Smith on his heels after several rulings in the Mar-a-Lago documents case.

What the publicity does is highlight to the world just how politically motivated all of this aforementioned action really is.  Lastly, what are the odds of the random 3-judge panel to approve it.  Even the DC Circuit Court itself seems to imply this was a structured outcome, which is even more infuriating to the majority within the court.

Atlanta DA Fani Willis Plays the Race Card Giving Proactive Speech at Big Bethal AME Church


Posted originally on the CTH on January 14, 2024 | Sundance

Two high level takeaways.  First, please pay attention to the venue {GO DEEP}, as CTH has documented for 10+ years the AME church network is the epicenter of racially driven political influence.  BLM are the activist foot soldiers; AME are the network organizers.  BLM harvest the ballots; AME are the precinct workers who scan them as many times as needed.  This is the “Atlanta way,” that duplicates in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Charlotte, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore and Madison.

Second, Fani Willis must anticipate a major problem with her case and conduct if she is proactively going to the crew who will be tasked with circling the wagons on her defense.  In this video soundbite Fani Willis plays the race card to her audience at Big Bethal AME church in Atlanta. WATCH:

Fani Willis’ full speech was 35 minutes long and filled with racially driven context.

The AME church network is the same political system used by Barack “if I had a son” Obama, Benjamin Crump, Sybrina Fulton and Tracy Martin in Miami-Dade/Orlando. The same network in Ferguson Missouri (Mike Brown), the same network in Baltimore, Maryland (Freddy Gray), and on it goes.

The AME network is a system built on the guise of religion, but fraught with politics, racial division, the retention of pretenses and massive fraud.

.

1.3.24: INFO Flood incoming! CEOS departing in droves, Flight logs, Lawfare, Cali Ballots, Celine, Be ready, Pray!


Posted originally on Rumble By And We Know on: Jan 3, 2024 at 12:45 pm EST

Pretrial and Detention in Florida – Guilty Until Proven Innocent


Posted originally on Jan 9, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Rule of Law Justice

State laws should be viewed with a watchful eye as we move toward the next election. I often speak highly of Florida state laws, but make no mistake – Florida’s state government is still a GOVERNMENT but the lesser of multiple evils. Nearly every state quietly passed new legislation on January 1, and Florida’s new rules regarding pretrial release and detention are concerning.

SB 1534 regarding pretrial and detention now state that only a judge may set bail.

Section 1. Subsections (4), (5), and (6) are added to

   48  section 903.011, Florida Statutes, to read:

   49         903.011 Pretrial release “Bail” and “bond” defined; general

   50  terms; statewide uniform bond schedule.—

   51         (4) Except as authorized in subsection (5), only a judge

   52  may set, reduce, or otherwise alter a defendant’s bail. Upon

   53  motion by a defendant, or on the court’s own motion, a court may

   54  reconsider the monetary component of a defendant’s bail if he or

   55  she is unable to post a monetary bond.

   56         (5)(a) Beginning January 1, 2024, and annually thereafter,

   57  the Supreme Court must adopt a uniform statewide bond schedule

   58  for criminal offenses not described in subsection (6) for which

   59  a person may be released on bail before and in lieu of his or

   60  her first appearance hearing or bail determination. The Supreme

   61  Court must make the revised uniform statewide bond schedule

   62  available to each judicial circuit.

Judges will have the ability to raise bail, but they may not lower it. If convicted, not charged, with the following crimes, you will be detained until a judge can hear your case:

(6) A person may not be released before his or her first

   93  appearance hearing or bail determination and a judge must

   94  determine the appropriate bail, if any, based on an

   95  individualized consideration of the criteria in s. 903.046(2),

   96  if the person meets any of the following criteria:

   97         (a) The person was, at the time of arrest for any felony,

   98  on pretrial release, probation, or community control in this

   99  state or any other state;

  100         (b) The person was, at the time of arrest, designated as a

  101  sexual offender or sexual predator in this state or any other

  102  state;

  103         (c) The person was arrested for violating a protective

  104  injunction;

  105         (d) The person was, at the time of arrest, on release from

  106  supervision under s. 947.1405, s. 947.146, s. 947.149, or s.

  107  944.4731;

  108         (e) The person has, at any time before the current arrest,

  109  been sentenced pursuant to s. 775.082(9) or s. 775.084 as a

  110  prison releasee reoffender, habitual violent felony offender,

  111  three-time violent felony offender, or violent career criminal;

  112         (f) The person has been arrested three or more times in the

  113  12 months immediately preceding his or her arrest for the

  114  current offense; or

  115         (g) The person’s current offense of arrest is for one or

  116  more of the following crimes:

  117         1. A capital felony, life felony, felony of the first

  118  degree, or felony of the second degree;

  119         2. A homicide under chapter 782; or any attempt,

  120  solicitation, or conspiracy to commit a homicide;

  121         3. Assault in furtherance of a riot or an aggravated riot;

  122  felony battery; domestic battery by strangulation; domestic

  123  violence, as defined in s. 741.28; stalking; mob intimidation;

  124  assault or battery on a law enforcement officer; assault or

  125  battery on juvenile probation officer, or other staff of a

  126  detention center or commitment facility, or a staff member of a

  127  commitment facility, or health services personnel; assault or

  128  battery on a person 65 years of age or older; robbery; burglary;

  129  carjacking; or resisting an officer with violence;

  130         4. Kidnapping, false imprisonment, human trafficking, or

  131  human smuggling;

  132         5. Possession of a firearm or ammunition by a felon,

  133  violent career criminal, or person subject to an injunction

  134  against committing acts of domestic violence, stalking, or

  135  cyberstalking;

  136         6. Sexual battery; indecent, lewd, or lascivious touching;

  137  exposure of sexual organs; incest; luring or enticing a child;

  138  or child pornography;

  139         7. Abuse, neglect, or exploitation of an elderly person or

  140  disabled adult;

  141         8. Child abuse or aggravated child abuse;

  142         9. Arson; riot, aggravated riot, inciting a riot, or

  143  aggravated inciting a riot; or a burglary or theft during a

  144  riot;

  145         10. Escape; tampering or retaliating against a witness,

  146  victim, or informant; destruction of evidence; or tampering with

  147  a jury;

  148         11. Any offense committed for the purpose of benefitting,

  149  promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang;

  150         12. Trafficking in a controlled substance, including

  151  conspiracy to engage in trafficking in a controlled substance;

  152         13. Racketeering; or

  153         14. Failure to appear at required court proceedings while

  154  on bail.
Judge

Now, you may read through this list, nodding your head in agreement that anyone who commits a violent crime is a danger to our society and should be locked away. However, the legal system was designed so everyone is viewed as INNOCENT until proven guilty. This method enables the law to detain people who have not been charged with a crime and may be innocent.

Read the list a bit closer, and you will notice there are non-violent offenses that could land you in jail without bail. Inciting or participating in a riot means you are guilty until proven innocent. There WILL be riots after the election regardless of who wins, and everyone who participates may be held. You are unwise if you believe this will only benefit your political party. All the new arrivals to Florida could flip it blue, and “riots” like the Black Lives Matter wave will be considered OK, as the blue states deemed them, while conservative rallies will lead to domestic terrorism charges.

Conspiracy is also on the list if you read it carefully. So, if they simply THINK you may have committed a drug-related crime, you will be locked away until a judge can hear your case. We know that three-letter agencies have planted drugs on innocent people in the past to get that conviction. They do not even need evidence, as this is opening Pandora’s box to permit the government to detain citizens before trial.

Look at what happened over COVID. The courts closed due to the pandemic, and people living in states that did not offer bail were stuck behind bars for months until a judge could take their case. In New Jersey, for example, people awaiting trial were not even permitted to go outside for months on end, and the time they spent awaiting trial was not reduced from their sentence if found guilty. The judge is not required to take your case immediately, and they could potentially delay it for as long as possible, as they did during COVID.

Very Revealing – Supreme Court Refuses to Permit Twitter to Outline Scope of FBI/DHS Unlawful Domestic Surveillance


Posted originally on the CTH on January 9, 2024 | Sundance 

If you understand how the Dept of Homeland Security and FBI access and ultimately control the content of social media platforms, specifically the public opinion square of Twitter, then you can start to understand a much bigger aspect to this hidden court case.

KEY CONTEXT – During the Twitter File releases, existing DHS/FBI guidance controlled what the Twitter legal team was allowed to share with researchers.  The Twitter File group gave Twitter search terms, and the Twitter team entered the search words/phrases and generated results.  However, the Twitter legal team then had to filter that information against the instructions of DHS/FBI to determine what the research group was allowed to know; ultimately, what was allowed to become public information.

This reality stimulates the question: where/when did that prior guidance from DHS/FBI originate?   The answer to that question is discovered in a little-known lawsuit by Twitter against the U.S. government.  Please do not overlook the dates here.

Back in 2014, Twitter sued the government, “seeking to make public the number of times the FBI requested user information from the company in connection with national security investigations.” {linkWhy?  Because during the Obama administration, Twitter “was blocked from publishing the quantity of requests in its biannual online “Transparency Report,” claiming the government unlawfully restrained its speech.” {link}

In essence, DHS/FBI were weaponizing Twitter data and demanding information on specific users, specific inquiry about issues of greatest concern to the Obama administration.  The Obama administration then told Twitter they were not permitted to talk about their demands due to “national security” issues.  Twitter was barred from telling the public what was happening.

Keep in mind, the lawsuit by Twitter against the Obama administration (DHS/FBI) was in 2014, so the demands from government were ‘prior to’.   Now, does my prior outlining of “Jack’s Magic Coffee Shop” start to make more sense?  [Keep in mind, I received a ridiculous subpoena for writing about this.]

The Twitter lawsuit against the government wound its way through the lower courts and various levels of appeal.  Each lower court ruled against the release of the information, forbidding Twitter from releasing the information.  Why? Because the executive branch, in this example Obama DHS/FBI, have unilateral authority to determine what constitutes a “national security” issue.   If DHS/FBI says the issue is a “national security” threat, the judicial branch is not prepared to challenge that definition.

Ultimately the lawsuit ended up at the doors of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court refused to engage the question thereby supporting the rulings of the lower court.  You can read about THAT PART HERE.  However, there’s another layer to this story that needs to be accurately understood, because this deference by the judicial branch to the executive branch is part of how the system is weaponized.

You might remember this 11th circuit court of appeals ruling against Trump; it essentially encapsulates the issue:

These rulings are essentially correct, as following the process within a constitutional republic. However, here’s the rub.  The weaponized Deep State are using this deference, as a tool in their Lawfare arsenal.

If the Deep State can unilaterally determine what constitutes “national security,” and if the judicial branch is not going to review or challenge those determinations, then the executive branch can target people, target institutions, and/or conduct domestic surveillance while hiding their conduct behind the shield of national security.

That’s exactly what the weaponized institutions (DHS, DOJ, FBI) have been doing.

That’s exactly the process that Barack Obama and Eric Holder created.

That’s exactly the motive for Eric Holder creating the DOJ National Security Division (DOJ-NSD).

Now, can you see the bigger issue, as presented by the Twitter case against government, that was just highlighted by the Supreme Court decision not to get involved.

The DOJ-NSD is the targeting mechanism for corrupt interests in our government to target us.  The Dept of Homeland Security and the FBI unite in the process and provide the results to the DOJ-NSD for action against the targets.  The collaboration then uses “national security” as the technique to stop those being abused by the targeting system from ever finding out, and the judicial branch cannot provide oversight.

Hopefully, this helps people put the scale of the ‘weaponization of government’ issue into a context.

That’s how they are carrying out Lawfare.  That’s why there’s no process to impede them within the ordinary structures of constitutional protection.

Their ability to use “national security” as the justification for all of the corrupt targeting and surveillance is ultimately the source of power for the Fourth Branch of Government.

Inversen Interviews Webb


Posted originally on Jan 8, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

LIVE! The “January 6” Debate | Hosted by Zerohedge


Posted originally on Rumble By Glen Greenwald on: Jan 6, 7:00 pm EST

May 2024 & the WHO


Posted originally on Jan 7, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Huxley

Historically, the mindset from the very beginning of the United Nations has been this theory that a one-world government will end all wars. This has even been expressed directly by Julian Huxley, one of the founders. In fact, I had deep conversations with Maggie Thatcher about this and how the EU was proceeding with the very same theory. She understood that the Euro was not about currency and trade; it was about usurping power to dominate over Europe with centralized control. They have long held a bias toward allowing the people to actually have any vote in government. That’s why we vote only for a “representative,” and we are never allowed to vote on taxes or war. We certainly have no right to vote for this next covert tyranny under the World Health Organization.

Here is a video of former French President Hollande and German Chancellor Merkel explaining that the very purpose of the EU was to create a single government to prevent European war – not a single currency. This is the very same theory being rolled out by the UN, using climate change as the excuse to become the overruling power because no single country can solve the problem. It will take a global effort. Realizing that this is a difficult objective, they are now using their World Health Organization to scare the hell out of people, and they will dictate to all countries that will
justify locking people down when, in fact, this is all about their deep concern about rising civil unrest in the fact of a sovereign debt crisis when they can no longer sell new debt to pay off the old.

California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CSTRS) is the second-largest pension fund in the USA. They are in trouble with the same problem that took down banks that invested long-term before interest rates rose. CSTRS wants to borrow more than $30 billion to help it maintain “liquidity” without having to sell assets off its long-term bond at a 30-40% loss. According to a new policy, CSTRS’ investment committee also invested in green because that was fashionable. While they say go WOKE = BROKE, the same is applied to going GREEN.

If approved, the policy will allow CSTRS to borrow as much as 10% of the roughly $318 billion portfolio to be able to meet withdrawals. Naturally, this proposal also calls for leverage to be used “on a temporary basis to fulfill cash flow needs in circumstances when it is disadvantageous to sell assets.” This is just the tip of the iceberg.

ECM Wave 2020 2028 Pi

The goal here is to use the World Health Organization to provide the mechanism to justify quarantine camps as New York State was authorized, and this final draft to the World Health Assembly is to come in May 2024 in conjunction with the turn in our Economic Confidence Model. As I have pointed out, whatever takes place on the precise day has tended to be the most important focus. Here, in addition to this WHO tyranny, it is the precise day that whoever is elected as the President of Russia will be sworn in precisely on the day of the ECM.

2023_02_21_Putin_Speech 2

When it comes to this WHO proposal for a world dictatorship under the pretense of caring about our health when the stats show that sudden death may reach 17 million people worldwide who were vaccinated with this gene therapy rather than a traditional vaccine,  ironically, our greatest hope is Putin and the former Eastern Communist states in rejecting WHO for these people know tyranny first hand. Friends I have from Eastern Europe who moved to the USA all say the same thing – this is what they fled.

It is hard to say what the significance of this turn is. I certainly hope Putin survives, for if one of the hardliners gets the Presidency on any excuse of sudden health issues or whatever, then we will fact their Neocons against our Neocons, and we will be caught in the middle. On the other hand, those in Eastern Europe and Russia are showing resistance to the surrender of sovereignty to the WHO. Now, they call this surrender of sovereignty fake news. It will NOT function that whoever is there in the White House is compelled to carry out the orders of the WHO. There is no enforcement power, so it is not a surrender of sovereignty on some unwilling basis. The Biden Administration will sign because it will provide them the excuse to create quarantine camps and restrict travel.

Coxey & His Army

The first march upon Washington emerged following the Panic of 1893, known as Coxley’s Army. This was a group of unemployed men who marched during the depression year of 1894. Jacob S. Coxley (1854-1951) was a businessman in Ohio whose idea was that the government should provide employment through creating Public Works. His ideas were eventually incorporated into Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal and became the WPA in 1935.

Coxley set out for Washington on March 25th, 1894, with about 100 men and arrived there on May 1st with about 500 who had joined. Coxley’s First Amendment rights were, of course, violated for they arrested him for walking on the grass, pretending it had nothing to do with his march. This is what they do. They are doing this to Trump right now, charging him with an assortment of things that are all intended to suppress his right to run for president and to deprive us of our right to vote.

This is how the government will use the WHO recommendations claiming you have violated health issues to imprison you and strip you of your First Amendment right to free speech and assembly. If Trump were President, he would not be compelled to follow the WHO even if Biden signs the Treaty. This is why they are trying to get this through come May 2024 just in case Trump becomes president next January.

Spread the Word on RULE 2.13


Posted originally on Jan 7, 2024 By Martin Armstrong 

Thank you to JustJefferson14 for sharing the piece I wrote on New York’s tyrannical new legislation. This is NOT being reported by the mainstream media and we appreciate those who are enlightening the public by unveiling the truth. Click here to read the full article. 

Rule 2.13 – Isolation and Quarantine Procedures